EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
124392
February 7, 2003 -versus-
FEDERICO
ABRAZALDO
ALIAS "PEDING,"
Accused-Appellant. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For automatic review
is the Decision[1]
dated November 15, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan
City in Criminal Case No. 95-01052-D, finding accused-appellant
Federico
Abrazaldo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and
sentencing
him to suffer the supreme penalty of death and to indemnify the heirs
of
the deceased Delfin Guban the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity and
P27,000.00
as actual damages, plus costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the Information dated
August 3, 1995 filed with the trial court, accused-appellant was
charged
with the crime of murder committed as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about July
15, 1995 in the evening at barangay Pogo, Municipality of Mangaldan,
province
of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused armed with a bolo, with intent to kill,
treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and there wilfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously stabbed DELFIN GUBAN Y GUINTO inflicting upon him a
stab
wound which caused his death to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY to Art. 248,
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant
entered a plea of not guilty.[3]
Forthwith, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution
presented
as its witnesses Rosendo Fajardo, SPO1 Ramie Petrache, SP02 Roberto
Fernandez,
Dr. Alberto Gonzales and Gregorio Guban.
Accused-appellant
and his sister, Marites Abrazaldo, took the witness stand for the
defense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts of the case
as presented by the prosecution witnesses are as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 15, 1995, at
about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Pogo, Mangaldan,
Pangasinan,
accused-appellant, then intoxicated,[4]
attempted to hack his uncle, Bernabe Quinto, but instead, hit the post
of the latter’s house.[5]
The incident was reported to the barangay authorities, prompting Delfin
Guban, Rosendo Fajardo, Sr., Alejandro Loceste (all are members of the
barangay tanod), and Cesar Manaois to rush to the
scene.
Upon reaching the place, Fajardo heard accused-appellant shouting at
his
uncle, "I will kill you!" Thereafter, he saw accused-appellant coming
out
of Quinto’s house with blood oozing from his forehead.[6]
At that time, the place was well lighted by a flourescent lamp.
Guban
tried to assist accused-appellant. However, for unknown reason,
accused-apellant
and Guban shouted at each other and grappled "face to face."
Accused-appellant
pulled out his knife, stabbed Guban at the abdomen[7]
and ran away. When Fajardo got hold of Guban, the latter
said,
"I was stabbed by Feding Abrazaldo."[8]
Fajardo, together with the other barangay tanod, rushed Guban to the
Gov.
Teofilo Sison Memorial Hospital where he was operated by Dr. Alberto
Gonzales,
a Medical Officer III. But after a few hours, Guban died.
Dr.
Gonzales issued a Medico-Legal Certificate stating that the cause of
death
was "stab wound, epigastrium, massive hemothorax right."[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Gregorio Guban, the
victim’s father, testified that he was the one who spent for his son’s
funeral expenses. For the burial, he spent P10,000.00;[10]
for the 10-day funeral wake, P10,000.00;[11]
for the 9th day novena, P3,000.00;[12]
and for the hospitalization, P4,000.00,[13]
or a total of P27,000.00. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 16, 1995, Fajardo
learned that the knife used by accused-appellant in stabbing Guban was
in Salay, Pangasinan. Together with SPO2 Roberto Fernandez,
Fajardo went to the house of Francisca Velasquez, accused-appellant’s
aunt,
and recovered the knife.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Invoking self-defense,
accused-appellant presented a different version. On July
15,
1995 at about 10:00 in the evening, he was making fans inside his house
at Barangay Pogo, Mangaldan, Pangasinan.[15]
His wife Lydia and children Mary Jane, Melvin and Christelle were with
him. Suddenly, Delfin Guban, who was then drunk, went to his
house
and shouted at him, saying, "Get out Feding I will kill you!"[16]
When accused-appellant went out, Guban hit him with an iron pipe.
Accused-appellant ran towards his house and got his two
children.
Guban, now armed with a knife, followed him and they grappled for its
possession.
In the course thereof, both fell down.[17]
It was then that the knife held by Guban accidentally hit him.
Accused-appellant
did not know which part of Guban’s body was hit. Thereafter, he got the
knife in order to surrender it to the police.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Marites Abrazaldo testified
that accused-appellant is his brother.[19]
On July 15, 1992, at about 6:00 in the evening, accused-appellant,
Guban
and Juan Quinto were engaged in a "drinking spree."[20]
At about 10:00 o’clock in that evening, accused-appellant caused
trouble
at the house of his uncle, Bernabe Quinto.[21]
He attempted to hack his uncle, but instead hit the post of the
latter’s
house.[22]
While running away from his uncle’s place, he bumped an artesian well,
causing a wound on his forehead.[23]
Afterwards, accused-appellant killed Guban.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 15, 1995,
the trial court rendered a Decision, the decretal portion of which
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Court finds accused Federico Abrazaldo @ Peding guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic 7659, and in view of the
presence
of the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed while the
public authorities were engaged in the discharge of their duties and
that
the crime was committed at nighttime, which aggravating circumstances
are
not offset by any mitigating circumstance, accused Federico Abrazaldo
is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused Federico Abrazaldo
is ordered to pay an indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the
deceased
Delfin Guban. Accused is also ordered to pay the heirs of the
deceased
Delfin Guban the total sum of P27,000.00 as actual expenses, plus
costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In appreciating treachery
and the aggravating circumstances under paragraphs (5) and
(6) of Article 14,[25]
Revised Penal Code, the trial court held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We now come to the issue
of whether or not evident premeditation was present. The
prosecution’s
evidence is wanting on this point. However, there is no question
that there was treachery as the accused embraced Delfin Guban and
suddenly
stabbed him with a knife. The victim was not in a position to
defend
himself at the time of the attack. The deceased was stabbed
without
any warning. He was given no chance to defend himself. Treachery,
therefore, qualifies the killing of the victim and raises it to the
category
of murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The prosecution has
established thru the testimony of Gregorio Guban that at the time of
the
incident on July 15, 1995, the members of the barangay tanod, namely:
Rosendo
Fajardo, Sr., Delfin Guban and Alfredo Laceste were performing their
duties
as members of the barangay tanod. (See p. 6 tsn September 18,
1995).
This is an aggravating circumstance under paragraph 5, Article 14 of
the
Revised Penal Code. The members of the barangay tanod who are
public
authorities were engaged in the discharge of their duties at the time
of
the stabbing incident. Besides, the incident was committed during
nighttime,
that was 10:00 in the evening. Accused took advantage of the
darkness
of the night for the successful consummation of his plan to kill Delfin
Guban."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant, in
his Appellant’s Brief, ascribes to the trial court the following
errors:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
THE HONORABLE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE BY THE
ACCUSED
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
THE HONORABLE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE RECOVERY OF THE ALLEGED WEAPON USED IN
STABBING VICTIM AT THE HOUSE OF THE AUNT OF ACCUSED BOLSTERED THE CASE
AGAINST HIM DESPITE LACK OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS VERACITY.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III
THE HONORABLE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE TESTIMONY EXTRACTED BY THE PROSECUTION
FROM DEFENSE WITNESS MARITESS ABRAZALDO WHICH HAD NO SUFFICIENT BASIS
AT
ALL.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IV
THE HONORABLE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY ATTENDED THE STABBING OF THE
VICTIM
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT BASIS TO PROVE THE SAME.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
V
THE HONORABLE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT TOOK ADVANTAGE OF
NIGHTTIME
IN CONSUMING THE ACT.
VI
THE HONORABLE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS
AGGRAVATED
BY THE FACT THAT THE VICTIM WAS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Solicitor General,
in the Appellee’s Brief, asserts that in pleading self-defense,
accused-appellant
admitted he killed the victim and, therefore, he must rely on the
strength
of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the
prosecution.
Moreover, accused-appellant’s version of the incident is completely
contradicted
by the testimony of his sister. Also, the aggravating
circumstance,
under par. (5) of Article 14, Revised Penal Code, was clearly
established
because during the incident, Guban, as the Assistant Chief Tanod, was
on
duty and engaged in the maintenance of peace and order. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Solicitor General
though agrees with accused-appellant that there was no
treachery.
Evidence shows that he and Guban shouted at each other and struggled
"face
to face" before the stabbing incident. Thus, the assault was not
sudden.
Likewise, the Solicitor General is convinced that accused-appellant did
not purposely and deliberately seek nighttime to perpetrate the
commission
of the crime. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consistent is the jurisprudence
that where self-defense is invoked, it is incumbent upon the accused to
prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he is not the
unlawful
aggressor; (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his
part;
and (3) he employed reasonable means to prevent and repel an
aggression.
On appeal, the burden becomes even more difficult as the accused must
show
that the court below committed reversible error in appreciating the
evidence.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant miserably
failed to discharge the burden. To show that he was not the unlawful
aggressor,
he testified that it was Guban who went to his house, threatened to
kill
him,[27]
hit him with an iron pipe,[28]
and attacked him with a knife.[29]
We quote accused-appellant’s testimony, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. CAMPOS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
You said a while ago that on July 15, 1995 at about 10:00 in the
evening
you were in your house engaging in fan making, do you know of any
unusual
incident that happened during that time?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Delfin Guban came to my house and he was under the influence of liquor
and he shouted at me, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
And what did Delfin Guban shout at you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
He said, "Get out Feding I will kill you."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
After this Delfin Guban shouted at you, what happened next?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
When I went out of the house, I was already there infront of the house
then he hit me, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
You said Delfin Guban hit you, what instrument did he use in hitting
you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
He hit me with a pipe , sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
After Delfin Guban hit you with that pipe, what happened next?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
I ran towards my house inside, then got my two children while Delfin
Guban
followed me inside my house, sirchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
When Delfin Guban followed you inside your house, what happened again?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
He was holding a knife and we grappled and during that time both of us
fell down, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
When you grappled with Delfin Guban, who was holding a knife, what
again
happened?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
We grappled for the possession of the knife then we fell down and the
knife
he was then holding pointed towards him and hit him. x x x.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The foregoing testimony
bears not only the vice of falsity but also isolation. It is
uncorroborated
and even opposed by Marites, accused-appellant’s own sister and lone
witness.
Contrary to his testimony that Guban hit him on his forehead with a
pipe,
Marites declared that accused-appellant sustained the wound on his
forehead
when he accidentally bumped an artesian well. Instead of
fortifying
her brother’s defense, she virtually affirmed the prosecution’s story
by
testifying that he created trouble in their compound, attempted to kill
his uncle Bernabe Quinto and killed Guban.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ingrained in our jurisprudence
is the doctrine that the plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably
entertained
where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence
but in itself is extremely doubtful.[32]
In the present case, accused-appellant’s tendency to invoke a melange
of
defenses renders his testimony dubious. While he admitted the
commission
of the crime in order to preserve his own life, he maintained that
Guban
accidentally stabbed himself. This shows ambivalence.
Accident
presupposes lack of intention to stab the victim, while self-defense
presumes
voluntariness, induced only by necessity.[33]
Indeed, if there is truth to either of his claim, his natural course of
action was to assist the victim, or at the very least, report the
incident
to the authorities. Certainly, the justifying circumstance of
self-defense[34]
or the exempting circumstance of accident cannot be appreciated
considering
accused-appellant’s flight from the crime scene and his failure to
inform
the authorities of the incident. Furthermore, that he did not
surrender
the knife to the authorities is inconsistent with a clean conscience
and,
instead, indicates his culpability of the crime charged.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a last-ditch effort
to exculpate himself, accused-appellant assails Fajardo’s testimony as
tainted with inconsistencies and is "contrary to the normal course."
Accused-appellant
cannot invoke these alleged weaknesses in view of the principle that
one
who pleads self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence
and
not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. Even if the
prosecution’s
evidence is weak, it is still credible considering accused-appellant’s
admission that he killed the victim. It bears emphasis that
Fajardo’s testimony clearly points to him as the culprit. Not
only
did he pull out his knife, stabbed Guban[36]
and ran away.[37]
Fajardo also reiterated what Guban uttered to him, i.e., "I was stabbed
by Feding Abrazaldo."[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As Guban had succumbed
to death and his opportunity to divulge the truth on his demise had
been
lost, we cannot but cast a quizzical glance on accused-appellant’s
uncorroborated
testimony. More so, when such testimony was contradicted by his
own
witness who happened to be his sister. Standing alone against the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant’s own
account
of the killing must necessarily fail. We hold that his guilt has
been established to a degree of moral certainty. The trial court
did not err in relying on the testimony of Fajardo, an
eyewitness.
Time and again, we have said that we will not interfere with the
judgment
of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless
there
appears on record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence
which
have been overlooked or the significance of which has been
misinterpreted.
This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the
witnesses
through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood.[39]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, we find that
the trial court erred in concluding that treachery attended the
commission
of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of
the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the
execution
thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without
risk to himself arising from defense which the offended party might
make.
Treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. Fajardo
testified
that accused-appellant and Guban were "grappling with each other" and
that
prior to the stabbing, they were shouting at each other. In this
scenario, it cannot be said that Guban was unprepared to put up a
defense,
such as hitting accused-appellant, or that the latter’s assault was
sudden.
We quote in verbatim the testimony of Fajardo, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"ATTY. CAMPOS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
They were not then fighting?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
They were grappling with each other and then he stabbed Delfin Guban.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
In fact, they were shouting each other?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
What were they shouting against another?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
I could no longer understand because it was already night.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
But they were shouting loudly, am I correct?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Yes and there were many people."[40]
mphasis supplied) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court likewise
erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity or
nighttime.
For nocturnity to be properly appreciated, it must be shown that it
facilitated
the commission of the crime and that it was purposely sought for by the
offender. By and itself, nighttime is not an aggravating
circumstance.[41]
In the instant case, no sufficient evidence was offered to prove that
accused-appellant
deliberately sought the cover of darkness to accomplish his criminal
design.
In fact, Fajardo testified that there was a fluorescent lamp
sufficiently
illuminating the scene of the crime.[42]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither can we sustain
the trial court’s finding that the aggravating circumstance under
paragraph
(5) of Article 14, Revised Penal Code, i.e., that the crime was
committed
in a place where public authorities were engaged in the discharge of
their
duties, is present. It must be pointed out that this aggravating
circumstance is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as
shown
by the place of the commission of the crime, which must be respected.[43]
In this case, the crime was committed at the compound of the
accused-appellant
where no public function was being held. The arrival of the
barangay
authorities was precisely due to the trouble that had commenced prior
to
the stabbing incident. Clearly, the said aggravating circumstance
cannot be considered. Moreover, under the present Rules,[44]
aggravating circumstances must be alleged, otherwise, they cannot be
appreciated.
Being favorable to the accused, this new procedure may be given
retroactive
effect.[45]
Except treachery, the other aggravating circumstances mentioned have
not
been alleged in the Information.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the absence of any
circumstance that would qualify the crime at bar to murder,
accused-appellant
can only be held liable for homicide defined and penalized under
Article
249 of the Revised Penal Code. The prescribed penalty is
reclusion
temporal. Considering that there was neither mitigating nor
aggravating
circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, the penalty has
to be imposed in its medium period, ranging from 14 years, 8 months and
1 day to 17 years and 4 months. Applying the provisions of the
Indeterminate
Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the
minimum
of which is within the range of prision mayor, or 6 years and 1 day to
12 years. The maximum thereof is within the range of reclusion
temporal
in its medium period, which is 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years
and 4 months.[46]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the trial court’s
award of actual damages in the amount of P27,000.00, we find the same
to
be unsubstantiated. To be entitled to such damages, it is
necessary
to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of
certainty,
premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable to
the
injured party.[47]
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to
prove
the claim for expenses incurred.[48]
Gregorio Guban, the father of the victim, who shouldered the expenses
for
the wake and burial failed to submit receipts to show the amount of
such
expenses.[49]
However, as the heirs of Guban did actually incur funeral expenses, we
are justified in awarding P25,000.00, not for purposes of
indemnification,
but by way of temperate damages.[50]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, we now hold that
where the amount of the actual damages cannot be determined because of
the absence of receipts to prove the same, but it is shown that the
heirs
are entitled thereto, temperate damages may be awarded. Such
temperate
damages, taking into account the current jurisprudence fixing the
indemnity
for death at P 50,000.00, should be one-half thereof, or P25,000.00.
This
makes temperate damages equal to the award of exemplary damages, which
is likewise fixed at P25,000.00 in cases where its award is justified.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the
assailed judgment in Criminal Case No. 95-01052-D is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Federico Abrazaldo is
declared
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide defined and penalized under
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate
penalty of six (6) years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal
in its medium period, as maximum. He is ordered to pay the heirs
of the late Delfin Guban P50,000.00 as indemnity and P25,000.00 as
temperate
damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J.,
on official leave.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Crispin C. Laron. Rollo, at 63-69.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Records, at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, September 11, 1995, at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., at 5 and 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., at 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Records, at 52; TSN, September 18, 1995, at 14-17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
TSN, September 18, 1995, at 4.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[11]
Id., at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, September 14, 1995, at 16-20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, September 20, 1995, at 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id., at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id., at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id., at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, October 6, 1995, at 3-A.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id., at 3-B.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id., at 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id., at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id., at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id., at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
ART. 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are
aggravating
circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5.
That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in
his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge
of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6.
That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabited
place,
or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission
of the offense.
[26]
People vs. Saure, G.R. No. 135848, March 12, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
TSN, September 20, 1995, at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id., at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id., at 6-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id., at 5-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
TSN, October 6, 1995, at 3-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Ebajan vs. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 178 (1989); People vs. Orongan,
168
SCRA 586 (1988).
[33]
People vs. Carlos, 115 Phil. 704, 706 (1962).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People vs. Gerolaga, 263 SCRA 143 (1997) citing People vs. Rivera, 221
SCRA 647 (1993).
[35]
People vs. Figuracion, 362 SCRA 606 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
TSN, September 11, 1995, at 5 and 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
Id., at 22-24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Id., at 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People vs. Pacantara, G.R. No. 140896, May 7, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
TSN, September 11, 1995, at 22-23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
TSN, September 11, 1995, at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book I, 1993, at 350.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
People vs. Luayon, 260 SCRA 739 (1996); People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No.
136094,
April 20, 2001; People vs. Baroy, G.R. Nos. 137520-22, May 9, 2002.
[46]
People vs. Calago, G.R. No. 141122, April 22, 2002; People vs. Jamiro,
279 SCRA 290 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People vs. Acosta, G.R. No. 140386, November 29, 2001; People vs.
Suelto,
325 SCRA 41 (2000); People vs. Samolde, 336 SCRA 632 (2000).
[48]
People vs. Manlansing, G.R. No. 131736, March 11, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
TSN, September 18, 1995, at 4-5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
People vs. Manlansing, supra; People vs. Anivado, 348 SCRA 74, 94
(2000),
citing People vs. Gopio, 346 SCRA 408, 431 (2000); People vs. Carillo,
333 SCRA 338, 353 (2000), citing Sumalpong vs. Court of Appeals, 268
SCRA
764, 775 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |